Thursday, May 05, 2005

Malloy Renews Candidacy

Here is a quick excerpt from the email Dan Malloy has sent to his email list, which is also posted on his website:

Today, I am pleased to announce that the Chief State's Attorney's Office fully vindicated me and announced that it had officially closed its inquiry into contract awards and contract work in Stamford....My team and I are continuing to move forward with my candidacy for Governor. I am committed to pushing for meaningful debate on the future of our great State. I believe that Democrats will see me not only as the candidate with the most experience, strongest record of accomplishments and clearest vision for Connecticut's future, but also the candidate who stands on unquestionable ethical ground. Simply put, mine is the candidacy that represents the highest ethical standards in government, and I can bring that ethic to Hartford on behalf of all the people of Connecticut.

All right, then. Malloy running as the "ethics candidate" is a novel strategy, but one that could backfire dangerously. At this stage in the game, though, Malloy needs to shoot for the moon.

I'm fascinated by the decision to shut down the campaign while the investigation was going on. This was both a smart and a stupid move. It was smart because it allowed him to insulate himself from negative statewide attention. It was stupid because it stalled his fundraising, which now lags behind Bysiewicz and DeStefano. It was also stupid because it raises a lot of suspicions. Was he expecting to get caught, and needed the time to prepare a defense? Or did he know that he'd be vindicated, and decided to use the moment to relaunch a campaign that most in the state hadn't heard about?

Malloy did very poorly in the last Quinnipiac Poll, which showed him at the bottom of the Democratic pile. However, he also had very low name recognition. He's betting that positive attention will raise both numbers.

Will he succeed? I doubt it. He's running as a moderate who believes strongly in ethics. He's Jodi Rell. We already have one of her, and she hasn't been under investigation for corruption lately. Unless he can make more of an impression, he's doomed to stay in Stamford.

Living in Stamford and working for Mayor DeStefano's campaign, I must admit I have a bit of a different take on this.

Mayor Malloy has been a great mayor of Stamford. Many people believe that the investigation was a political hatchet job which failed. The Stamford Advocate writes a bit about this and I believe that Malloy will be able to use this effectively.

In terms of fundraising, he is behind now, but he has proven himself to be an effective fundraiser and I suspect that there are a lot of supporters that have been waiting on the sidelines ready to donate to his campaign. He could catch up fairly quickly.

In terms of the Quinnipiac poll, all three of the announced candidates came in very close to one another, so I'm not sure it is fair to suggest that Malloy did very poorly. It would have been very interesting see how the three would have faired if there was a question about a primary between the announced candidates.

In your entry about the Winchester Dems supporting Bysiewicz, you questioned if it was a bit early for this. I suspect that a lot of the poll watching is a bit early.

In the same entry you talked about DeStefano's weighty policy statements. It shall be interesting to see what happens as people start looking more and more at what is best for Connecticut.

ctkeith raises the issue of Malloy's membership in the DLC. I do believe DLC membership could become a liability, but the bigger issue is what does it reflect on policy issues. For that, we shall have to wait and see.

Nice to see you here. I've been following Mayor DeStefano's campaign and blog closely. You're light years ahead of Bysiewicz and Malloy when it comes to web presence, and I, for one, actually like the weighty policy statements. Neither of the other two declared candidates seem to stand for anything at all, yet.

The last Q-Poll was useful only in that it told us who the public knew about and who it didn't. The numbers should change as the campaign heats up next year. Malloy was the least known and he did the worst of all the candidates, declared and undeclared. This means he has the most room for improvement, of course, but it also means he has the most work to do to get his message out there.

This investigation may have been a failed "political hatchet job", as you say (and if so, who is going after him?), but it made headlines. It's going to hurt him, I think, just because the first impression most voters will have of him will be linked with a corruption investigation. The fact that he was exonerated may not matter if he can't effectively change that impression.

I think the fact that Malloy got city contractors to work on his house is unethical and Connecticut voters won't stand for it, especially not after what they have been through.

People expect their elected officials to do more than follow the letter if the law--the expect them to follow the spirit of the law. He can try to raise money--I wouldn't write him a check though, and I bet most of his past donors regret that they have in the past.

This is going to be a tough general election. Why would Dems bet on someone for whom there are reels and reels and reels of corruption accusation film on?

He is going to spend all his money running commercials that say "I didn't do it." He is not a good bet for progressive Dems looking for change.

I think that the stories about Malloy's house being worked on by city contracters have done a lot of damage, and provide both Republicans in Stamford and throughout the state with the fodder they need to defeat him, as long as they have a decent candidate.

I also think that "political hatchet jobs" can only go so far. Political enemies of elected officials constantly try to create stories to belittle those with power. Savvy, ethical politicans don't behave in a way that gives their enemies ammunition.

I have to agree with Annonymous. Beating Jodi isn't going to be easy and whomever the Democrat running against her is, that person had better be able to spend their time talking about CONNECTICUT ISSUES instead of DEFENDING THEMSELVES.

We need a candidate who can take it to Jodi, who can say "This is what I believe, this is what Connecticut should be about." We can't waste our time playing defense and if we do then we have already lost.

Jodi is weak. She has great numbers but she is weak. I want a Governor with a vision, with ideas. Jodi isn't about fixing Connecticut's problems as much as she is about keeping the same going.

I know John DeStefano is about change, about ideas and about helping the state become the land of excellence, not the land of steady habits.

Malloy is not my candidate, John is because John can win and I know Dan can't!

I'm a little unclear on what Mayor Malloy is referring to when he alludes to his accomplishments in Stamford. I've lived in Norwalk for the past 25 years and I used to work in Stamford and I don't see any drastic changes that have occurred during his tenure as mayor. New Haven on the other hand has done a complete 180 during the 12 years that John DeStefano has served as mayor. Crime has gone down, new schools have been built, graduation rates have gone up. These are tangible things that clearly show the influence DeStefano has had on his city.

The sense I get in Norwalk is that Malloy has no chance of winning the nomination. This is coming from Stamford's closest neighboring city. Regardless of whether or not he was guilty of any of the charges against him, people from across the state will immediately associate his name with the allegations. It will be hard for people in eastern Connecticut that have never heard of Dan Malloy to not immediately associate him with this story. If Democrats are serious about winning the Governor's seat, why would we nominate someone that will have to spend his entire campaign answering questions about alleged ethical violations?